It seems we are approaching the situation from two different perspectives, you seem to be asking how within the fictional setting, a Billionaire character could go about making positive impacts to combat supervillains, and within his own constraints, perhaps he is doing all he can. But I am talking about the very concept of Batman as a literary work of fiction.
The authors chose to write their stories from the perspective of a Billionaire, they chose to write their villains and create this setting where the most idealized reactionary vision of individual excellence can be portrayed. The core of the issue with Batman stories is how they build the world around him in order to justify his actions. The villains in Batman are always irredeemable, and are repeatedly sent to prison or asylums only for them to break out again and cause problems, pushing the reactionary idea that there is no such thing as rehabilitation for those who have done wrong. The government and authorities in Gotham are meant to look pathetically corrupt and incompetent, not because of the inherent trend of the capitalist system to prevent it, but because they're all devoid of agency and submissive to organized crime, which is absolutely not how police corruption works in the real world, police are not weak, they are overwhelmingly powerful, and that is where their corruption arises, this is another blatantly reactionary view.
And to top it all off, there is the one single aspect of Batman that stands out to me over all the rest, and that is his technological superiority, which never goes questioned. The idea of a supercomputer database which knows everything about what happens in a city through the control of mass surveillance is the stuff of horror for most people. But only should it fall into the wrong hands, most reactionaries will cry out in horror at the thought of mass surveillance if the "wrong" government is the one doing it. But in the stories, Batman has this very technology all to himself, and its shown as a good thing, because he's the enlightened, incorruptible individual who deserves to wield this power. I think even in the dark knight films they touch upon this, and it makes you wonder, why does Batman keep all this to himself? Its because he is placed in a world where only he knows best, and everyone else cannot be trusted. When you think about that, its hard to not see it as the peak of right wing fantasy.
I agree with your points, I think you're right in that I was speaking from more of an in-universe perspective, but I feel that admitting its from an in-universe perspective is unfair to a piece of fiction. I do tend to prefer Watsonian explanations over Doylist ones.
It seems we are approaching the situation from two different perspectives, you seem to be asking how within the fictional setting, a Billionaire character could go about making positive impacts to combat supervillains, and within his own constraints, perhaps he is doing all he can. But I am talking about the very concept of Batman as a literary work of fiction.
The authors chose to write their stories from the perspective of a Billionaire, they chose to write their villains and create this setting where the most idealized reactionary vision of individual excellence can be portrayed. The core of the issue with Batman stories is how they build the world around him in order to justify his actions. The villains in Batman are always irredeemable, and are repeatedly sent to prison or asylums only for them to break out again and cause problems, pushing the reactionary idea that there is no such thing as rehabilitation for those who have done wrong. The government and authorities in Gotham are meant to look pathetically corrupt and incompetent, not because of the inherent trend of the capitalist system to prevent it, but because they're all devoid of agency and submissive to organized crime, which is absolutely not how police corruption works in the real world, police are not weak, they are overwhelmingly powerful, and that is where their corruption arises, this is another blatantly reactionary view.
And to top it all off, there is the one single aspect of Batman that stands out to me over all the rest, and that is his technological superiority, which never goes questioned. The idea of a supercomputer database which knows everything about what happens in a city through the control of mass surveillance is the stuff of horror for most people. But only should it fall into the wrong hands, most reactionaries will cry out in horror at the thought of mass surveillance if the "wrong" government is the one doing it. But in the stories, Batman has this very technology all to himself, and its shown as a good thing, because he's the enlightened, incorruptible individual who deserves to wield this power. I think even in the dark knight films they touch upon this, and it makes you wonder, why does Batman keep all this to himself? Its because he is placed in a world where only he knows best, and everyone else cannot be trusted. When you think about that, its hard to not see it as the peak of right wing fantasy.
I agree with your points, I think you're right in that I was speaking from more of an in-universe perspective, but I feel that admitting its from an in-universe perspective is unfair to a piece of fiction. I do tend to prefer Watsonian explanations over Doylist ones.
To each their own, interesting idea to discuss regardless.